Donald Trump files lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google

[AussieBob]

1 hour ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

The limits to free speech in America generally relate to inciting violence, which the alt-left and the alt-right, and their political representatives, are certainly all guilty of. Nancy Pelosi was praising the Hong Kong protesters for being "heroes of democracy" not long before the capital riots.

Trump did not incide sedition as well, he gave a speech saying the rally should peacefully march to the capital and "show their strength", which has been interpreted (by media outlets, mostly) to be a call for the riot that occurred. However, speaking exclusively to facts, the riot on the capital began 30 minutes before Trump had even uttered those words, so unless the rioters knew what he was GOING to say and acted on their premonition, my opinion is that Trump did not incide any violence or sedition. There is mounting evidence (not proof) that the FBI may have been involved in provoking the riot, as well.

Trump's big mistake that day, again in my opinion, was that he didn't immediately denounce the riot.

Also, his issue with FB, Twitter and Google isn't that they banned him after the riot, it's that they had already banned him and content regarding him during his Presidential campaign. They just confirmed that he was banned indefinitely following the riot. So again the issue at hand is that they prevented important information about him from reaching Americans who may have voted for him if they had the information.

Gotta agree with all that - especially that Trump should have denounced the riot immediately. Because Trump is an arrogant billionaire and has not served any 'apprentice' as a politician, he is extremely unskilled in managing situations diplomatically and with deference and tact - he is no Obama.  However, as many others have said, many of his policies and decisions were the right ones, and maybe another less 'abrasive' politician will take up the reins by 2024.  

[thai3]

1 hour ago, uanmak said:

It will be comical to see him at the bar justifying why he was banned from those media. There are essentially zero hopes he may win such lawsuits. At least here is something funny to follow in the next months

Isnt it actually Florida who started this off and Trump is participating as a resident of the state?

[thai3]

28 minutes ago, bushav8r said:

Fight amongst each other each other and you both look stupid.  You can't even spell.

Discussion is not a 'fight', as I often tell the Mrs, did I make a spelling error? oh dear how naughty.

[bushav8r]

2 minutes ago, thai3 said:

Discussion is not a 'fight', as I often tell the Mrs, did I make a spelling error? oh dear how naughty.

Not naughty at all..sorry for my quick comment.

[MrStretch]

Cheeto Jesus doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Patong.

I disagree that you can't be a private entity but serve as a public forum.  As a private entity, regardless of 230, you are ultimately going to be held accountable for whatever appears through your efforts and product.  Even if the law doesn't hold you accountable, a segment of the population and market will.

The Orange man has no right to force a private company or its platform to carry his lies,  boasts and opinion. If there was a systemic denial of allowing his views to be aired on his own platforms, then he might have a First Amendment case, but it wouldn't be against the plaintiffs.  He has the option to broadcast his views.  He can't force others to do that.

This lawsuit isn't about winning...it's about keeping Cheeto Jesus in the spotlight where he loves to live.

[BigKat]

Well I can see the Bias from the Thaiger is shining through. Your Socialist viewpoints are shining through.  looking at the many posts it appears a lot of your followers believe in suppressing opinions as well. 

[SickBuffalo]

Cancel culture should have no place on this forum.

If anyone wants to turn every thread into a fight about Trump or Brexit, an echo chamber almost exclusively dedicated to that already exists. It is called ThaiVisa.

[billybob]

3 hours ago, SickBuffalo said:

Cancel culture should have no place on this forum.

If anyone wants to turn every thread into a fight about Trump or Brexit, an echo chamber almost exclusively dedicated to that already exists. It is called ThaiVisa.

well said that man  your Buffalo is not sick but in rude health.... increase the peace ...spread the love. 

[HolyCowCm]

6 hours ago, thai3 said:

But still a far better President than the one that replaced him, at least Trump could string sentences together and remember where he was, hope he wins the law suites as these platforms were against him from day one. Yahoo is still knocking him everyday, not Biden though.

He had his chance and blew it. I marked X for him the first time and the second time there was no way gonna do that again.. But he did cross a couple of subject issues like taking on China and bringing the border problems to the table that were ok in my mind. Not perfect in his whacky thinking but at least on the table.. He made it not even past most of the first year before I was really grimacing seeing the divide he was creating domestically and in the world. Most everything else he did is a no thank you, never seen more of a habitual liar than him. Narcissist is probably right on the button for him and his kids, excluding his lovely wife. Now the guy who is in now, not a big fan of him as well, but he has some some good things to undo needed for repairs, and also followed on some of the things what big mouth started. If he shows to be not up to par then out he goes, unless he passes away first or there isn't any better character to vote for. 

[ThaiFoodGuy]

9 hours ago, 9S_ said:

If a baker can refuse to bake a gay mans cake, a tech company can censor anyone they want. 

First of all, that isn't what happened. A private, independently owned and operated baker refused to write a sentence on the cake because of his religious beliefs. He even offered make the cake itself for the couple, without the writing they wanted on it, but they wanted the message on the cake. It wasn't an issue of "free speech" in the same way as being allowed to say whatever you want, it was an issue of "coerced speech" in that the baker felt that he should not have to be forced to write or say something he either didn't want to or didn't believe. And he won his case, too. It's ridiculous that it even had to go that far.

Imagine going into a roadside food stand in Pattaya, and you ask for a Khao Man Gai, and you'd like them to use the sauce to write a message on your plate, saying "Thais are Racist, Thailand Sucks, White Power". And the little "mae" who cooks and runs the shop, confused by your request, says no. So you FREAK OUT to all your friends and local expats, saying "LOOK how RACIST and HATEFUL these bigots are! They won't even serve me! You know what? I'm going to sue them into the ground so they'll never think twice about denying service to a farang like me. Wow, I feel great, and everyone is going to thank me :)" Well, then you'd have a lot in common with the guys from that lawsuit.

Second, are you suggesting that a mom and pop bakery is similar, in any way, to a massive tech oligarch? A tiny bakery IS civilly liable for anything they say or do, a massive social media platform isn't. Why? Because they claim to be a public forum, simply a platform where people speak their mind, and therefore are granted immunity from lawsuits under section 230. The problem, and the core issue of this whole thread and article, is that they claim to be a public forum, but are acting like a private forum.

People like yourself, saying they're a tech company so they can censor anyone they want, are absolutely correct. And, since that is the case, they should also be liable for any damages or costs associated with that censorship and/or banning. Simple!

[AussieBob]

1 hour ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

First of all, that isn't what happened. A private, independently owned and operated baker refused to write a sentence on the cake because of his religious beliefs. He even offered make the cake itself for the couple, without the writing they wanted on it, but they wanted the message on the cake. It wasn't an issue of "free speech" in the same way as being allowed to say whatever you want, it was an issue of "coerced speech" in that the baker felt that he should not have to be forced to write or say something he either didn't want to or didn't believe. And he won his case, too. It's ridiculous that it even had to go that far.

Imagine going into a roadside food stand in Pattaya, and you ask for a Khao Man Gai, and you'd like them to use the sauce to write a message on your plate, saying "Thais are Racist, Thailand Sucks, White Power". And the little "mae" who cooks and runs the shop, confused by your request, says no. So you FREAK OUT to all your friends and local expats, saying "LOOK how RACIST and HATEFUL these bigots are! They won't even serve me! You know what? I'm going to sue them into the ground so they'll never think twice about denying service to a farang like me. Wow, I feel great, and everyone is going to thank me :)" Well, then you'd have a lot in common with the guys from that lawsuit.

Second, are you suggesting that a mom and pop bakery is similar, in any way, to a massive tech oligarch? A tiny bakery IS civilly liable for anything they say or do, a massive social media platform isn't. Why? Because they claim to be a public forum, simply a platform where people speak their mind, and therefore are granted immunity from lawsuits under section 230. The problem, and the core issue of this whole thread and article, is that they claim to be a public forum, but are acting like a private forum.

People like yourself, saying they're a tech company so they can censor anyone they want, are absolutely correct. And, since that is the case, they should also be liable for any damages or costs associated with that censorship and/or banning. Simple!

Well said mate. Unfortunately a lot of the issue gets lost in the person involved - Trump.  Put that guy aside and then you can see the problem - unaccountable companies suppressing opinions and views on their platforms that they do not agree with. Trump publicly attacked the tech giants while he was in office and they got back at him - he was politically stupid to do that. But the issue now is not Trump - the issue is do tech giants run 'platforms' or do they 'publish content'. At the moment they are having it both ways - they are legally acting as both AT&T (not responsible for content and cannot be sued) and Penguin/Random House (managing and controlling content because they can be sued) - because of Section 230. The SCOTUS will make the final decision on this matter - the current Courts are the process to get there.  

[billybob]

18 minutes ago, Zool said:

Me too, I love it. I still don't get how he causes people to become drooling idiots, but it has been very entertaining.

I get the troll factor of Trump in fact that was his biggest schtick. But trolls are best not fed and used for entertainment not leading a great nation. 

 

 

[ChristyS]

FB stopped me from posting on ANY political site for 4 months during the Federal election in 2020 and  never informed me why..  I run two groups, TrumpWatch and AmericanResistanceOrganization which I take great care to moderate and only allow with accredited news sources...( AND NO GIFS DAMMIT !)   yet there I was, a liberal with my  opinions and voice quashed during a Presidential election I was highly interested in. . 

 October 2020  - Business Insider - "According to the WSJ, some policy executives at Facebook voiced concerns in 2017 about pending changes to the news feed algorithm that they thought might have a larger impact on right-leaning news sites like the Daily Wire. So engineers made changes to the algorithm that would have a bigger impact on traffic to left-leaning sites.

A Facebook spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal “We did not make changes with the intent of impacting individual publishers.”    

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-throttled-traffic-to-progressive-news-sites-wsj-2020-10

 

 

  

  

Edited July 9, 2021 by ChristyS
replace quote source

[ChristyS]

4 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Well said mate. Unfortunately a lot of the issue gets lost in the person involved - Trump.  Put that guy aside and then you can see the problem - unaccountable companies suppressing opinions and views on their platforms that they do not agree with. Trump publicly attacked the tech giants while he was in office and they got back at him - he was politically stupid to do that. But the issue now is not Trump - the issue is do tech giants run 'platforms' or do they 'publish content'. At the moment they are having it both ways - they are legally acting as both AT&T (not responsible for content and cannot be sued) and Penguin/Random House (managing and controlling content because they can be sued) - because of Section 230. The SCOTUS will make the final decision on this matter - the current Courts are the process to get there.  

What book publisher has been sued successfully for  content ?  I only know of one case and that  was  The Hit Man guide to killing people that a murderer used in an actual hit job. ( USA, MD )  

Edited July 9, 2021 by ChristyS
Clarify

[PapayaBokBok]

22 hours ago, thai3 said:

But still a far better President than the one that replaced him, at least Trump could string sentences together and remember where he was, hope he wins the law suites as these platforms were against him from day one. Yahoo is still knocking him everyday, not Biden though.

You're kidding right????   Do you really need me to post some youtube vids?????   Seriously...turn off Fox

[AussieBob]

6 hours ago, ChristyS said:

What book publisher has been sued successfully for  content ?  I only know of one case and that  was  The Hit Man guide to killing people that a murderer used in an actual hit job. ( USA, MD )  

Google.  There are Lawyers that specialise in that area - and sharks only go where there is likely to be food. 

I used book publishers as argument - but that also applies to other organisations such as Media Companies like CNN, Fox, ABC etc etc etc. They are responsible for the content that they 'publish' through their media organisations to the public. They can 'deflect' responsibility to the presenter/speaker - but they are ultimately responsible to manage things, and try to prevent things being 'published' anything that could result in legal action against them. The news presenter cannot say whatever they think - they are given instruction and lots of training about the sort of things they can and cannot say.    

[ChristyS]

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Google.  There are Lawyers that specialise in that area - and sharks only go where there is likely to be food. 

I used book publishers as argument - but that also applies to other organisations such as Media Companies like CNN, Fox, ABC etc etc etc. They are responsible for the content that they 'publish' through their media organisations to the public. They can 'deflect' responsibility to the presenter/speaker - but they are ultimately responsible to manage things, and try to prevent things being 'published' anything that could result in legal action against them. The news presenter cannot say whatever they think - they are given instruction and lots of training about the sort of things they can and cannot say.    

Please give one example of  a book publisher as that was my counter to your argument . 

[AussieBob]

18 minutes ago, ChristyS said:

Please give one example of  a book publisher as that was my counter to your argument . 

I think you want an argument (definition 1) - but I want a discussion (definition 2).

Definition of 'argument':

1.  an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
2.  a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.